Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
More than half of new health and disability benefits claims are now for mental health, yet under the Government’s welfare cuts Bill the personal independence payment could be stripped from three quarters of claimants with arthritis and two thirds of those with heart disease but fewer than half of those with anxiety. Does the right hon. Lady believe this is the right decision?
Goodness me; I asked the right hon. Lady quite a serious question, so that was a very disappointing answer. However, she and I are in agreement that the benefits bill needs to come down, and that will need real reform of the system, so why is she pressing ahead in a panic with her half-baked cuts rather than doing the job properly? We would support a proper rethink of which conditions should get what help, and a better system for people struggling with mental health or neurodiversity, who would be better off in work than parked on benefits. Why did not she make that part of her plan?
When the Government’s own impact assessment for the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper suggests that 50,000 children will be plunged into poverty and businesses are already slashing vacancies in the light of the Employment Rights Bill, does the Secretary of State really believe that the Government’s child poverty taskforce is pushing in the same direction as the rest of the Government?
It seems that we have been going around in circles for an hour and a quarter. In answering questions, the Foreign Secretary has rightly pointed out that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran reaching 60% enriched uranium. Likewise, he has rightly acknowledged that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran spreading and sponsoring terrorism around the region, yet each time he has concluded with a hope that greater rounds of diplomacy will solve this. Hope is not a strategy. At what point will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that there probably can be no diplomacy with a regime that is so brutal to its own people and just will not listen?
At the weekend, Vivergo and Ensus workers learned that UK negotiators had successfully protected the UK bioethanol industry until President Trump called the Prime Minister and he sold out that industry, allowing a genetically modified bioethanol to flood the market and put all those jobs at risk. What can the Secretary of State tell those workers who feel that they have been sold out by our Prime Minister when negotiators had successfully protected an industry of the future?
When organisations such as Palestine Action break into military bases, damage secure facilities and put our personnel at risk, they are not just protesting but sabotaging. With that in mind, if any other extremists had carried out those tasks they would rightly be described as domestic terrorists. Does the Minister agree that this is not legitimate protest, it is domestic terrorism and that any attack on our armed forces’ infrastructure should be seen thus?
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations. The Government are right to focus on strengthening trade in the internal market and ensuring that Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged in any way by de-listing. Maintaining a wide variety of product choices and availability is crucial: not only does it benefit consumers, but it encourages competition. However, it is important to consider the regulations in the broader context of the Government’s economic policies. Unfortunately, recent measures taken by the Chancellor, such as the increase in national insurance contributions, have led to significant increases in costs for business. Although the draft regulations exempt small businesses, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, they do not exclude medium-sized or large businesses, which together account for 53% of private-sector employment in the UK. The impact assessment sets out that, over a 10-year period, businesses will face between zero and £53.8 million in total one-off labelling costs, including package redesign and the costs associated with setting up new product lines, and between zero and £279.4 million in total ongoing labelling costs, including product line changes and transportation. That is a considerable cost to push on to businesses in the full knowledge that it may ultimately be paid for by consumers. What assurances can the Minister provide today that the regulations will not add to inflation, which is something that the Government have yet to get under control? The draft regulations set out that the intention is to provide businesses with the opportunity to comply with any notice before a fixed monetary penalty is imposed. They therefore allow a sufficient period of time to be granted to businesses to make the necessary changes. The period can be extended by agreement, where a business has demonstrated sufficient progress but has been unable to become fully compliant in the timeframe allowed. Can the Minister outline how many businesses he expects to seek an extension and what the cost will be for local authorities to process applications for extension? I would also like to ask about Labour’s proposed new deal with the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the deal will facilitate trade across the Irish sea, and what impact that might have on these regulations? Although we do not want to see customers in Northern Ireland suffering as a result of the unavailability or insufficient supply of retail goods, we have concerns that the regulations will be considered another blow to business confidence and business finances, so I will be grateful if the Minister can give reassurances on those points. We look forward to scrutinising the matter further and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about the potential consequences of the draft regulations for businesses in an increasingly difficult climate.
I thank the Foreign Secretary and his Department for the work they are doing to protect British citizens here and abroad. What does he think needs to happen for Iran to abandon its ambitions to build and deploy a nuclear weapon?
When an extremist minority spreads division and intimidation and now has even attacked our military, prioritising foreign regions and their interests above our own, it is an attack on our country. It is treason. The primary job of our Government is to protect the UK, so I welcome the announcement today that the Government are taking action to do just that. I was proud to celebrate Armed Forces Week at the flag raising ceremony in Runnymede this morning. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all our armed forces staff and the work they do for us all?
I am proud to speak in today’s debate on Pride Month; it is the first time I have done so. I also enjoy the distinction of being the first straight man to become a member of LGBT Conservatives, which involved a special resolution to approve my membership. Hopefully that will be the first and last constitutional conundrum for which I am responsible in my political career. Today, I want to speak of my incredible pride that, more than 10 years ago, a Conservative coalition Government passed legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. Today, around 167,000 people are living in same-sex marriages, with all the happiness, challenges and life-enriching complexity that involves. I am proud of that because the Conservative party is the party of family, and the party of rights and duties, freedoms and responsibilities—the freedom for people to love whoever they choose, and the freedom to honour that love by making a lifelong commitment to another person, with all the responsibilities for mutual care, support and home building that entails. Children enjoy the best outcomes when they are raised in stable, loving homes. While marriage is not always a guarantee of stability, it is a good indicator and supporter of it. Data from the UK longitudinal household survey shows that cohabiting parents were 3.4 times more likely to split up during any given one-year period compared with married parents, across income groups. The benefits of making a commitment and raising a family are not just for the children of those families. Taking on family responsibilities gives people meaning and purpose, making them more productive as they work to put the people they have taken responsibility for ahead of themselves. In saying this, I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the single parents and cohabiting couples, both same sex and heterosexual, who do a heroic job every day for their families. Quite frankly, as a married parent myself, I do not know how single parents manage it and I pay tribute to them. All parents should be acknowledged and appreciated for the daily acts of care and sacrifice that they make for their children—our future. Just because other models can and do work, we should not stop striving to support the institution of marriage as the foundational building block of our society. Society benefits from stable families where children can be supported to thrive and become citizens who contribute to not only their family lives, but their communities. I am pleased and proud to belong to a party that championed the rights of same-sex marriage and brought it into law. Our laws and policies should incentivise commitment to family life for all couples, regardless of sexuality. I am proud that because of decisions in this place, so many people can marry the person they love today.
My constituents in military establishments around Salisbury plain will not see this as an act of vandalism. They will see it as criminal damage. They will see it as sabotage. They will see it as terrorism. The Minister, who I respect, does himself no good by trying to downplay its seriousness. There are 2,900 Ministry of Defence policemen in the country. In recent years, they have been employed largely in investigating relatively low-level fraud within the Ministry of Defence and in military establishments across the country, with a relatively low conviction rate. Does the Minister agree that they would be much better employed looking after our critical national infrastructure and military bases up and down the land, including those in my constituency, and will he consider ensuring that warranted officers are able to do a job of work for the MOD that cannot be done by regional forces? I am very confident that they would welcome the challenge.
The Minister is rightly pointing out where progress has been made nationally and internationally, but when he was cantering through those points of light nationally, he missed out one group: the men and women serving in our armed forces. I am particularly mindful of that because Saturday is Armed Forces Day and, sadly, one of the chief advocates for LGBT people in the armed forces, Lord Etherton, died in May. Will the Minister pay tribute to Terence Etherton and comment on his 2023 report into the shameful way in which gay people were treated in the armed forces between 1967 and 2000?
The family of my constituent, Katie Solomon, have been in touch to share their fears about her as she shelters from Iranian attacks in Israel. My constituent Mehdi Moslehi has told me about how his life in the UK started as a refugee from the Iranian regime. Can the Foreign Secretary tell my constituents and the House why, given Iran’s record, he is finding it so difficult to follow the Prime Minister in welcoming the actions of our allies in seeking to reduce the risks posed by the Iranian nuclear programme?
If Iran chooses to close the straits of Hormuz, which the Iranian Parliament has now voted to do, what contingency options has the Foreign Secretary worked up to protect UK national interests?
I was glad to hear defence running through the Business Secretary’s statement. Will he tell us how much equity the authors of the strategic defence review had in the compilation of the UK modern industrial strategy?
I respect the Minister very much, and I know that he cares deeply about people who rely on the social security system. That is why it is such a tragedy that he is presiding over these profound reforms without having consulted disabled people. Can he explain why so many benefit claimants feel that these reforms have been rushed through, not to make a fairer system but because the Treasury demanded cuts to meet the fiscal emergency created by the Chancellor’s job-destroying, growth-stopping Budget? They are right to think that, are they not?
I am just sorry that there has been so little consultation with the victims of the changes that the Government are introducing. One area where the Government do not seem to be looking for savings is in the Motability scheme. It was supposed to help physically disabled people get around, but now we have 100,000 new people a year joining the scheme, many of them not physically disabled at all. One in five of all new car purchases are bought through this scheme, and it is costing taxpayers nearly £3 billion a year. I know that the Minister will blame us for the system, but the fact is that the Government are not even looking at Motability. They have had a year, and it is their policy now. Will the Minister commit to a proper review of the Motability scheme, and if not, why not?
The Foreign Secretary has referred a number of times to the diplomatic off-ramp. Will he confirm to the House that the diplomatic off-ramp—the request of the United Kingdom to Iran—is that the regime changes its stance and finally recognises the right of our ally, Israel, to exist?
It is good news that, reportedly, the Home Secretary has finally decided to proscribe the treacherous terrorist group Palestine Action. Given that she has done that at great speed after the recent attack, and given that the IRGC has conducted or attempted attacks on this country multiple times, will the Foreign Secretary use his powers to persuade the Home Secretary to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety?
In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?
Given the manner of infiltration at RAF Brize Norton, I am concerned that the MPGS across the defence estate is neither resourced sufficiently nor given the authorisation to engage potential saboteurs. The scope of its role allows lethal force to be used only if there is a direct threat to life. RAF Wyton in my constituency, which has the same issue, is protected by the MPGS and augmented by serving personnel. Given the sensitive information that it provides as the home of defence intelligence, can the Minister offer a guarantee that security levels there will be ramped up? Furthermore, RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury are both in my constituency. As USAFE—US air forces in Europe—bases, they operate under US rules of engagement, so lethal force is permitted at a far lower level. Why are US bases in the UK defended to a higher level?
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the statement on the middle east earlier today, I asked the Foreign Secretary: “In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?” Just a few minutes after I asked that question, Iran launched an air attack against US bases in Qatar and Iraq. The Foreign Secretary evaded providing a coherent response by referring me to 2.13 of the ministerial code. In the current version of the ministerial code, published on 6 November 2024, there is no 2.13; chapter 2 finishes at 2.7. I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, in understanding why the Foreign Secretary is misleading the House by quoting made-up references to the ministerial code to avoid scrutiny. Should he, as one of the great officers of state, return to this place and clarify why he is not on top of his brief?
The Foreign Secretary has said that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Does he therefore support the recent targeted strikes by the United States and Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities: yes or no? If not, can he explain how exactly that inaction would have curtailed Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is always a good day when we can talk about our wonderful and innovative British businesses, but, sad to say, this strategy has taken the best part of 12 months to appear. That is how long British industry has had to wait for this cut and paste industrial strategy; 158 pages mostly copied and pasted from previous sector strategies and the science and technology framework, which do nothing to alleviate the pain and turmoil that Labour has already inflicted. In those 12 months, Labour has crashed the economy—[Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but unemployment has been up in every one of the nine months of this Government, with hiring and investment down. I understand that this document is printed on 40% recycled paper—very much like its content. Yet there is no respite for businesses from the decisions that have been taken. The Secretary of State talks about restoring stability, and that may well be what was written for him, but he, like me, listens to businesses, so he cannot possibly believe that. The Government have hiked taxes by £40 billion when they promised not to, and gilt rates are higher today than after the mini-Budget; they fiddled the fiscal rules and are now running out of headroom, all while setting up state investment banks in a repeat of the previous Labour Government’s private finance initiative. Higher taxes, higher energy costs and more red tape on employment—the proposals set out in this document are simply insufficient at a time when businesses need far greater measures to defend them from the minefield that Labour has left out. There are many elements of this strategy that we do welcome. I am pleased that the Government have continued the work the former Chancellor and I undertook on access to capital, and it is good to see an emphasis on trade and international co-operation, particularly with the document’s focus on Japan and Saudi Arabia. I am glad that the Government are implementing the O’Shaughnessy reforms and turning the NHS into a global platform health data research service. It is encouraging to see the weight given to autonomous cars, although it is curious that there is no mention of the opportunity of driverless trains. I am disappointed that the life sciences and engineering biology receive relatively modest mentions. There is a minor mention of skills reform, but there is no mention of real deregulation to our labour market and a near absence of references to small businesses, which account for the majority of businesses and employment in this country. The big miss, however, is on energy. We welcomed the Prime Minister’s epiphany this weekend when he announced he would slash green levies on a certain number of businesses. However, the industrial strategy still talks about accelerating to net zero at a time when British business needs the opposite. It is simply mad. Rather than the Business and Trade Secretary—sitting next to the Energy Secretary on the Front Bench—addressing the root causes of high energy costs, this Government seem intent on adding to the web of complexity of taxes, levies and subsidies. There is nothing in the strategy about reopening the North sea—the energy reserves that lie under our own secure feet. It even compounds the problem by imposing further self-harm through a carbon border adjustment mechanism—a tariff by another name—which will cost businesses and consumers in this country dear. How can anyone outside this postcode running a business believe that Labour intends to cut the regulatory burden when it has set up new quangos at the rate of one every two weeks, including in the Business Secretary’s own Department? How can anyone outside Whitehall looking at the regulations take seriously the commitments in this document, when the Secretary of State’s own Department is guiding through the House 300 pages of trade union-written employment law, which will force employers to cut hiring and jobs? I will conclude with a number of questions. If the Secretary of State cannot answer today, perhaps he would be so kind as to write with a reply. The small business strategy was promised for the spring, but the summer solstice is now behind us. Can he tell the millions of businesses when it is coming? There are a number of live situations that the Secretary of State will be aware of, including the bioethanol plan in Saltend Chemicals Park in Hull, Syngenta moving its precision wheat breeding programme to France, and the Government equivocating over supporting the stake in the vital low Earth orbit satellite operator OneWeb. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is actions, not words, that count, and will he impress that on his Treasury colleagues? Finally, the strategy does talk about reducing the number of regulators, which is wholly welcome, as we need a marked cull in the number of regulators and their scope and size. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing an annual statement showing the progress his Government are making on that, and will he start today by agreeing not to create any new ones?
This is the first time I have spoken in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I assure you that I will keep my comments short and respectful, and respectful of others. I am also conscious that none of us in this place underestimates the enormity of the decision that we face today. I do not believe it is a heart or a head decision; that over-simplifies a very complex matter. I have no doubt at all about the sincerity of the intentions of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) in bringing forward this Bill, but I would just gently say that in this place, good intentions do not always yield the good results that we might all strive for. As I have monitored the progress of the Bill, I have continued to struggle with it, and nothing in it has changed my mind. The importance of these debates is monumental; that is underpinned by the literally thousands of comments and emails I have had from my constituents in Aldridge, Brownhills. Some have been writing to me on this matter since before the first debate at the end of November. As the Bill has proceeded through this place, I have also struggled with the way that it has been likened to previous moral and ethical legislation; I would argue that the process is very different from that which went before. Hon. Members are correct that some of the most pioneering social legislation of the post-war period was introduced via private Members’ Bills, most notably the Abortion Act 1967 and the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which decriminalised homosexuality. It would be remiss of me not to point out that both those Bills went through an extensive, Government-led public inquiry, which paved the way for legislation. A medical advisory committee, under the chairmanship of Sir John Peel, considered the Abortion Bill, and the Wolfenden committee considered the laws on homosexuality. I am afraid that advice is sadly lacking for this Bill. The Government have set up a wide range of policy reviews, and it would have been totally appropriate for such a review to have been sought on this matter. Much has also been made in this debate of the idea that the Bill is a slippery slope, and that in the future the Bill will be extended and extended; that point is made because of what we see in other countries. As a modern society, we must come to terms with having a conversation and a debate on death. I do not believe that today has to be the end of that conversation, but I genuinely do not believe that the Bill is in the right place to go forward to the House of Lords, and I will therefore vote against it.
Many points have been made already today, so I will not cover them all. Briefly, I associate myself with the words of the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), whose powerful speech summarised the points that many of us wish to make, and those of the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whose questions have got to the heart of this matter. This Bill is about many different things, but fundamentally, it is about two: power and trust. It is about the power over life and death, not just over ourselves, because we already have the power to end our own lives—it is called suicide. It is not a crime, and has not been a crime in this country for decades. The Bill is about a different power: the power of the state through its agents to exercise power over life and death. Yes, the exercise of that power will be agreed and approved of in advance, but when the state takes a life, even with consent, that is a huge shift in the relationship between the individual and the state. It is a transformation in the way in which power lies, and we should be fully conscious of what is being done. That is why this debate, frankly, needs a little more honesty. We have heard the blandishments and the warm words of euphemism; we have heard this called assisted dying, but the truth is that it is not assisted dying. Assisted dying is what a hospice already does today—helping people, caring for them and supporting them. This is assisted killing or assisted suicide, depending on which word we choose. Honesty in language is important. If we are not even willing to be honest with ourselves in this place, how on earth can we expect the courts to consider the questions we have debated when they have to look at these cases? I say to all right hon. and hon. Friends—in a debate like this, we are all friends, because we are all seeking the right answer for our country—that this is the last time we are going to talk about these questions. This is the last time that we are going to have actual authority over the words in this Bill, and no matter what interviews we have heard and no matter what assurances we have been given, today or over the past few weeks, the only thing that matters is the words in black and white in the Bill. Those are the words that will be interpreted by judges for years to come.
I will not. Those are the words that will give powers to Ministers and to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her discretion with the most cursory of oversight from this place. Let us be absolutely clear on what we are choosing to do. Let us be absolutely clear that it is on us—it is our responsibility—to think not just for those who have options and power, and those who will not be intimidated, but for those who will be. We must think of the weak and vulnerable, to whom the Mother of the House referred, and for the communities in our country who already do not trust the health service, reject vaccination, choose not to come early for cancer diagnoses and already have the worst health outcomes. We need to think of them. Choosing to make that gap greater is not just enabling someone to access care, but actively rejecting others in our community who should seek care but will not because of the fear this will raise in their hearts. We need to think really hard about that. To those who say that there will be no change and that, “This is it; there can be no further change,” I say that the closest legal equivalent to this legislation is the Canadian legislation. The closest legal equivalent to us is the Canadian Parliament. The closest equivalent to the national health service is the Canadian health system. I therefore give you—
I am not giving way. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has spoken for many hours; I am speaking for five minutes. The experience of Roger Foley, a Canadian living with a degenerative condition, warns us: “As Canada has expanded its assisted dying law, I have faced neglect, verbal abuse, and denial of essential care. I’ve been told my care needs are too much work, and my life has been devalued. Worse still, I have been approached and told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid in Dying. Instead of offering compassionate support to alleviate my suffering, it is suggested…that I should end my life.” Sadly, this is not the only example we have heard of this; we have also heard of veterans with post-traumatic stress order and others with limiting conditions. Today, sadly, we have even said that those who merely feel pressure are allowed to access this service. Members have a real choice today. When that first 18 or 19-year-old—that first individual—goes and asks for this, it will be we who made that decision. It will be on our consciences. It will be a decision that has fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and the state in a way that can never be reversed.
Order. I reiterate the admonition that Mr Speaker has offered. This is one of the most far-reaching considerations that the House—even those of us who have been here for a very long time—can remember. It is understandable that a lot of Members will wish to take part, from across the House and on both sides of the argument, but looking around, it is quite clear that we cannot accommodate everybody. This means there will inevitably be a considerable number of interventions. All I would say, gently, is that interventions will be taken into account when considering the order of priority in which Members are called.
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) and many others who have given brave testimony of their own personal experience in this matter. I join the tributes to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who I think has conducted herself with decency, dignity and compassion throughout this process. But I have heard her and others say that the decision we have to make today is whether or not we are in favour of the status quo, and I respectfully disagree. Our job as legislators is to consider rigorously the proposed legislation before us, and those who propose it bear the burden of persuading us that this is the right change to make, and not a change that may bring problems as big or bigger than those we are trying to solve. I have spent nearly 30 years in this place that makes our laws and practising in the courts that administer them. I have had ministerial responsibility for sentencing and for the Crown Prosecution Service. I have faith in our system of laws, but I have also seen the limitations on our ability to avoid the negative consequences of the laws we make, however hard we try. So very often the legislative decisions we take are about a balance of risks. In this case, the risk of not changing the law is that we leave some of our constituents in pain where it could be avoided, and expose their loved ones to the fear of prosecution for acts of love and mercy. I acknowledge that risk, and I have felt the anguish and desperation of those who want this Bill to pass for the very best of motives. But good people can come to different conclusions on the balance of risks here, and I think that we take a bigger risk in changing the law. That is because of the signal we send in the legislation we pass. Signals sent by changes in the law matter. When Parliament changes the law, it brings consequences for those who break the new law, but it also intends to change behaviour. Creating new criminal offences, increasing maximum sentences or even strengthening regulations are acts that we hope everyone will take notice of and behave differently as a result, because they recognise that Parliament, on behalf of society as a whole, is signalling its disapproval of certain actions or practices. If that is true for legislation that makes unlawful what was previously lawful, why should the same not be true for legislation that makes lawful something that was previously unlawful? We are sending a signal there too: that society, through Parliament, believes that something we used to think was unacceptable is now acceptable—in this case, that assisting someone to die is now something of which we approve. I believe that is bound to have an impact on those who, in great distress at the end of their lives, may already be thinking that it would be better if they were out of the way. I do not want to live in a society in which anyone, including the terminally ill, is encouraged in the belief that their life is not valuable and valued to their very last moment. Though it is not its intent, I fear that the Bill brings such a society closer. That is why I cannot support it.
I have no doubt that the vast majority in this House—probably every single hon. and right hon. Member—is sympathetic to the underlying motivation of the Bill, which is to ease suffering in others and try to avoid suffering where possible. For the most part, the debate, both in this Chamber and in Committee, has been good natured and conducted in a way that we can be proud of. There have been wider questions about the motivations of both the proponents and the opponents of the Bill. Although this is not about any individual one of us, I think it is only fair that, because some questions have been asked, I put a few things on the record about my own position. I do not come at this from a religious point of view—I am an atheist; I am a humanist. My position is driven by my concerns about the practicalities of the Bill, rather than any religious viewpoint. It has been suggested, particularly when people talk about their experience of talking to people who have lost loved ones or who are themselves terminally ill—this has been said to me on a number of occasions—that if we had seen someone suffering, we would agree with the Bill. I have seen someone suffering. Earlier this year, my closest friend died painfully of oesophageal cancer, and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. I come at this from a position neither of faith, nor of ignorance, and I hope that the House will take those factors into consideration when I say what I am about to say.
I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s point later in my speech. I will try not to take too many interventions, because many people have not had the chance to speak in the debate and I want to give them the chance to do so. On Second Reading I made the point that we need to think about the detail of the Bill and not just vote in accordance with the broad principles. I made the point that, because it is a private Member’s Bill, the opportunity to change it fundamentally is limited, and so we have an enhanced duty to get it right first time. We were told on Second Reading that a lot of the concerns, worries and detailed questions would be resolved in Committee. We were promised the gold standard: a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards. Those protections did not make it through Committee. I have also heard people say, where there are still problems, issues and concerns, that the Lords will do that work. But none of us should think that it is right to subcontract our job to the other place. We are making an incredibly important and fundamental change, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, in the relationship between medical professionals and those they serve. If we make that change, we will introduce a small but permanent question mark in the minds of every patient, particularly a patient who is discussing a serious illness or terminal diagnosis: “What is this medical professional expecting of me? What are they thinking? Where is their head?” Whereas, with the situation we have at the moment, the patient knows that the medical professional is dutybound to do no harm, and to preserve life and dignity wherever possible.
The hon. Lady asks me to speculate about a set of circumstances that are personal and painful. I suspect that she and I both know that the outcome could have been very different, and that the moments she had with her sister, just like those I had with my dear friend, might have been lost. We have to recognise that this is an important moment. While I respect the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), I disagree with her assessment that it is now or never; that it is this Bill or no Bill; and that a vote against it on Third Reading is a vote to maintain the status quo. None of those things is true. There will be plenty of opportunities. Indeed, we are dutybound, stimulated by this debate—which is why I do not criticise the hon. Lady for bringing forward the Bill—to have a serious conversation about palliative care. Many people will say that these are not conflicting or contradictory positions. But—and I will crack on because otherwise you will tell me off, Mr Speaker—we know that there could be circumstances where assisted dying would be on a statutory basis and the provision of palliative care would not. We also have to address the point that we can all pray in aid individuals and institutions to reinforce our positions on this, but we cannot subcontract our decisions. Yes, we can fish around for people to come up with the perfect quote to reinforce our arguments, but another five minutes on Wikipedia, Google, or with friends of ours in the medical profession will find another voice that opposes that. Yes, it is a mixed picture in the medical professions, but I am struck by the number of professional bodies that are neutral on the topic of assisted dying in general but opposed to the provisions within this Bill in particular. We cannot just say, “They are neutral on assisted dying, and therefore this particular vehicle has to progress.” We carry a responsibility—it is what we are sent here to do—and we need to take it very seriously. We must be rigorous on the specific details in the Bill. Just like the hon. Member for Spen Valley, I do not have time to go through every single argument that was had on Second Reading, in Committee and beyond, but in order to ensure that we are rigorous, there are three fundamental questions that we should ask ourselves—not lean on our friends and colleagues, but ask ourselves—and ensure that we answer fully and honestly.
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point, and I will touch on that briefly in my remarks. I am minded to take no more interventions, because otherwise I will be stealing time from others. There are three questions we need to ask. First, are we happy for this Bill—not for the principle, but for this Bill as drafted—to become law? Many of the elements that I have already discussed are concerning. In the criteria set out, medical professionals do not need to seek deeper motivation. We have said there is not a real choice between palliative care and assisted dying, because one will have a statutory underpinning and the other will not. As I say, the “gold standard” protections were lost in Committee, because a number of professional bodies and—
I need to make progress. A number of professional bodies have said they do not have the capacity. They do not have enough people to fill the slots that this Bill demands of them. Secondly, in terms of fundamental changes, are hon. and right hon. Members genuinely happy to write the blank cheque that this Bill demands? It is normal for the Secretary of State of a Government Department to decide when a piece of legislation comes into force, and they make their decision based on the state’s ability to deliver that legislation. Commencement dates matter; they are not just some arbitrary dates on a piece of paper. I understand people’s desire to ensure that this cannot be lost down the back of the sofa when it comes to Government work, but when the people on whom we would rely to deliver this Bill say that they are not ready and that they do not feel that they will be ready—they do not have enough people and they do not have enough capacity, so they will have to take resource from current provisions to move across to this provision, which will be driven by a statutory requirement and a locked-in commencement date—we should listen. If the people who are going to make this work—and work as well as we hope it will, if it becomes legislation—say that they are not confident that they can make it happen, we should be very careful about demanding that they prioritise this. That is what this legislation says: they will prioritise this above any other work that they might otherwise do. Thirdly—the hon. Member for Spen Valley hinted at this, and I mentioned it in an intervention in an earlier stage of the Bill—on coercion, on the pressure that individuals put on themselves and on medical professionals raising the issue, we know that there are inequalities in health provision already, none of which will be addressed by the Bill. There are certain communities, and certain people in those communities, particularly women, who are overly deferential to men and to men in authority. Can we genuinely say that we have no fear whatsoever about a potentially vulnerable woman sitting in front of a medical professional who raises assisted dying? Even if they do not imply that it is the right thing for her to do, the very fact that they bring it up will have a significant influence on that woman’s thinking. We cannot believe that the effect will be completely neutral across all communities.
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I refer her to my second question. Those bodies say that they do not have the people to populate those panels, yet that is what the commencement date demands. The principle of having a person or group of people to protect against coercion is important—I am talking not just about coercion, but about how people perceive people in authority—but royal colleges and social workers have told us that they do not believe they will be ready to put those guardrails in place by the commencement date. We should listen to them. This is an important debate that has stimulated an important conversation, which demands our full attention, but I do not believe that the Bill is ready to go to the other place. It is interesting that there are both proponents and opponents of the Bill who hope that the Lords will make significant changes to the Bill. That should surely set off alarm bells. Ultimately, because the Bill is such a fundamental change, we need to ensure that there is an enhanced level of scrutiny of its detail. We all want to avoid and alleviate suffering wherever possible, but I do not believe that we have had the opportunity to get the Bill into the right shape. That is why I will oppose Third Reading, and I encourage others to do likewise.
I have not spoken so far in these debates, but I have listened and attended on pretty much all occasions. I am moved to speak today because I am concerned. This is the point that the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft) made, but what is this debate today about? This debate is not about the principle of what we believe in when it comes to assisted dying—whether we are opposed to it or in favour of it. We had that debate on Second Reading. As the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), made very clear—in what I must say was an excellent speech—and as others have too, today’s Third Reading debate is about what we are about to pass on to the House of Lords, which will become law. And the single question we have to ask ourselves is: is this genuinely workable now? The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who moved the motion, knows that I have a high regard for her—I have worked with her on other things—but I honestly have to say that I simply cannot see how we in this House can pass this piece of legislation through to the other House, in the vague hope that somehow it will do better than us and make changes such that it will become a workable piece of legislation, and that is because this is a private Member’s Bill. If a Government were to introduce a Bill like this, we would see a great deal more input and a huge amount more checking with all those bodies. For example, we were told on Second Reading that the safeguards and protections we were sending to Committee would somehow become the most robust and strongest in the world. In fact, in Committee they got weakened, not strengthened, and that is the problem in all this.
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I understand that many others want to speak, so I am going make a bit of progress if she does not mind. The other important point, when we think about what our vote today is all about, is the behaviour of the professional bodies that have been consulted on this, which have come out for the most part very strongly opposed to this legislation.
I simply do not agree with the hon. Lady on that reading. The professional bodies are completely divided, and most have come out in opposition to the nature of this legislation. It is all very well for her to say that, and I appreciate her right to say it, and I hope she gets to speak later, but I just do not agree with it. As was said earlier in the debate, the whole issue of mental capacity is not dealt with properly in the structure of this Bill. The hon. Member for Spen Valley talked about this earlier, and she was absolutely right. Even the amendments that were proposed were not always accepted, and we are left now with some areas that will be deeply troubling. We simply cannot accept that the Lords must make these changes for us, for we have to make them first. That is the key. The one big important area here—I absolutely agree with my constituency neighbour the Health Secretary on this—is that we talk a lot about choice in dying, but how is that choice informed if palliative care in the UK is simply not good enough? Again, the Mother of the House spoke about this, and there are so many people affected: the most vulnerable; the people furthest away from institutions; and the ones who understand least how to work the health service or their local authority, and who rely mostly on us to try and break through. They will be faced with this problem more than almost anybody else, because they look in fear on these institutions. I helped to set up a children’s hospice, which I think was the first in London. There have been many more since, but children’s hospices, as we know, are really badly treated by Government spending, pretty much no matter who is in power. They have less than anybody else. Haven House, which I helped to set up and raise money for, has given a very strong quote, which I think represents much of what most of those hospices have said: “We would fully agree that a change in the law would have very significant consequences for the delivery of palliative care services and would be challenging given the existing resource pressures that we face. The hospice sector is experiencing significant financial pressures and the exceptional palliative care services we provide are not financially sustainable. The introduction of assisted dying would create new and demanding requirements for palliative care services and hospices in particular. It is therefore vital, whether or not the current legislation is passed, that the government takes urgent action to resolve” this matter. That is the case today. We cannot just say, “Well, that’s not our problem. Palliative care can be changed.” The trouble is that we have been unable to make the necessary changes to palliative care because we take such parti pris positions. That is the problem we face. I will end with this. I will vote against the Bill, mostly because I believe it is fundamentally unworkable and will lead to huge problems. We have seen what has happened elsewhere internationally—Canada, Oregon and various other places—where legislation slides and slides again as more and more amendments have to be made because these things are not workable. To those who have any doubt, I simply say this. This is Third Reading; it is not Second Reading—it is not an “in principle” debate. We had that debate, and now we have to decide whether we should send this unworkable piece of legislation to another place, which is unelected, to make the decision for us because we cannot come to a conclusion. We cannot let this go through.
I have served for many years with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and, dare I say it, we have not agreed on everything over the years, but we have published a few articles on this topic. Those articles have always started with the fundamental principle of the NHS. Some of us—maybe myself included—have been rather critical of the NHS over the years, but at least when we go into the NHS, we know that everybody is really trying their best to preserve life. That is the fundamental principle. The reason why the right hon. Lady and I both oppose the Bill is that, as has been said several times, we are not talking about just a principle here; we are talking about an actual Bill. I know some people will criticise me and say, “Oh, you would oppose this, because of your religious views and all the rest of it.” Actually, I take quite a sensible and, I hope, pragmatic approach to this. I have listened to all these debates, and we have heard so many harrowing stories of people’s last hours. I think we should treat people on both sides of this argument with respect, understand their points of view, and respect the dignity of dying people. I have always taken the view that we should open up this debate. Actually, I have brought forward a ten-minute rule Bill—which of course will be objected to at half-past 2 this afternoon—saying that we should have a full study, led by the Department of Health and Social Care, by health professionals, to work out how we can help people in their final hours. I have been to many hospices and care homes, and talked to many palliative care specialists who assure me that they have the resources and skills nowadays to make those final hours pain-free and bearable, but we have heard testimony from others saying that that is not possible. If they could convince me that there were some extreme cases where people were dying in agony, totally lacking in dignity in their final hours, then I would listen to those arguments, but I do not think that is the Bill that we have before us today. I therefore urge Members to remember that we will be voting on a Bill, and I think that the Bill is so riddled through with difficulties and inconsistencies. I think it will be subject to human rights legislation. It is very difficult to argue that we can ask somebody to assist in a person’s death when they are within six months of dying of cancer—although there is no universal testimony or acceptance about how we work out those six months—but not if they are suffering from some appalling degenerative disease or are a quadriplegic or have no quality of life. So I think there is actually an argument that, if we pass this Bill today, we will move in the direction of Canada and we will have death on demand. I will end on this point. Before voting for this Bill, just pause for a moment and think, “Wouldn’t it be better?” We have heard about the many hours on the abortion Bill, and the universality of clinical acceptance of it. Before we vote for this Bill, do we not think that we should ask the Health Department to have a profound and knowledgeable study, working with the royal colleges, on whether it is possible to have decent palliative care, not just in our wonderful hospices, but in all our hospitals? There is no doubt that in recent years, particularly since Shipman, there has been a fear among many NHS health professionals about providing that degree of palliative care—that degree of morphine, fentanyl or these hugely effective modern drugs. So, just pause and think. We are not voting on a principle; we can come back to this, and, at a later date, we can get consensus and we can have a really good Bill that will allow everybody to die in dignity.